Talk:Treadwell's Bookshop

File:Treadwells Bookshop London 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Much of this article is completely self-referential. Almost all the references are either to the shop's own site, or from printed material that all used the shop's owner as a source. Biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.213 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about anything of general interest--it's an advert, or SEO feature...it serves no real purpose. There is no history, about, points of interest...etc. DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.15.233 (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This article consists of four sentences. It's needs expanding, or deleting.

Deletion
This is a section to arrange and continue all existing and any new calls for this page to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.24.50 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

5/6 refs on this site are to interviews with the shop owner. Bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.53.147 (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

4 sentences does not an article make. Agree with previous talk comments, mark for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.7.164 (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Article references company's own website==bias. Mark for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.237.125 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Barely a stub. Flesh out or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.147.147 (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2014


 * Before making the previous comment, the editor first deleted one of the article's reliable sources. Since Wikipedia's general notability guideline says that notability can be established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", one should not delete such sources and then assert that the topic isn't notable.  This is a very short article but the topic does appear to have multiple reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Bullcrap. It had four references to the same chapter of the same book, all of which were quotes from the shop owner. All refs here are based on interviews with the shop's owner, and totally self-referencing. This page has easily and correctly been reduced to remove "bumpf" - and that only requires one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.162.173 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You might have an argument in favor of deletion, but I couldn't put one together from your comment here - and had to remove the AFD tag. If you like, post your reasoning for wanting the article deleted here and I can complete the steps, or make a request at The AFD talk page and another editor will complete the nomination. In the meantime, the article's one sentence doesn't explain why the subject is notable, so I tagged it for notability. It exists, and that's good, but there needs to be more there there. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to remove the AFD tag. It requires a proper discussion first as per the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.162.173 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As explained above, you didn't complete the steps required to create a discussion under WP:AfD.  Also, your removal of information regarding a source was not constructive.  There may be valid arguments to delete this article, but this is unclear from your comments so far.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This. We can absolutely have a debate on the merits, but that debate begins when you say "This article should be deleted because it doesn't meet these policies, or because it isn't notable, or because of this other reason", or whatever. Then other editors reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, raising their own points, and so on. That debate lasts as week. Then an administrator reviews the discussion and sees where consensus lies. So please state your rationale for deleting the article - and we'll set up the debate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm new to wikipedia editing but am a librarian and knowledgeable generally about sources etc. I am not affliated with this bookshop. I've added two citations to this entry (hopefully correctly) and a sentence and a phrase, would think we can call it a day - could someone review and remove the "notability" tag at the top? Please let me know what else I can do to help here. Llatulip (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)